We’re only halfway through 2018, so it would be premature to select a technology, theory, or concept for the year. But one aspect worth considering is what might be termed the dark side of edtech. Given the use of social media for extremism, data scares such as the Facebook breach by Cambridge Analytica, anxieties about Russian
bots, concerted online abuse, and increased data surveillance, the unbridled optimism that technology will create an educational utopia now seems naïve. It is not just informed critics such as Michael Caulfield27 [#fn27] who are warning of the dangers of overreliance on and trust in edtech; the implicit problems are now apparent to most everyone in the field. In 2018, edtech stands on the brink of a new era, one that has a substantial underpinning of technology but that needs to build on the ethical, practical, and conceptual frameworks that combat the nefarious applications of technology.
Conclusion
Obviously, one or two paragraphs cannot do justice to technologies that require several books each, and my list has undoubtedly omitted several important developments (e.g., gaming, edupunk, automatic assessment, virtual reality, and Google might all be contenders).
However, from this brief overview, a number of themes can be extracted to help inform the next twenty years.
The first of these is that in edtech, the tech part of the phrase walks taller. In my list, most of the innovations are technologies. Sometimes these come with strong accompanying educational frameworks, but other times they are a technology seeking an application. This is undoubtedly a function of my having lived through the first flush of the digital revolution. A future list may be better balanced with conceptual frameworks, pedagogies, and social movements.
Second, several ideas recur, with increasing success in their adoption.
Learning objects were the first attempt at making teaching content reusable, and even though they weren’t successful, the ideas they generated led to OER, which begat open textbooks. So, those who have been in the edtech field for a while should be wary of dismissing an idea by saying: “We tried that; it didn’t work.” Similarly, those proposing a new idea need to understand why previous attempts failed.
Third, technology outside of education has consistently been co-opted for educational purposes. This has met with varying degrees of success. Blogs, for instance, are an ideal educational technology, whereas Second Life didn’t reach a sustainable adoption. The
popularity of—or the number of Wired headlines about—a technology does not automatically make it a contender as a useful technology for education.
This leads into the last point: education is a complex, highly interdependent system. It is not like the banking, record, or media industries. The simple transfer of technology from other sectors often fails to appreciate the sociocultural context in which education operates. Generally, only those technologies that directly offer an improved, or alternative, means of addressing the core functions of education get adopted. These core functions can be summarized as content, delivery and recognition.28 [#fn28] OER, LMS, and online
assessment all directly map onto these functions. Yet even when there is a clear link, such as between e-portfolios and recognition, the required cultural shifts can be more significant. Equally, edtech has frequently failed to address the social impact of advocating for or implementing a technology beyond the higher education sector.
MOOCs, learning analytics, AI, social media—the widespread adoption of these technologies leads to social implications that higher
education has been guilty of ignoring. The next phase of edtech should be framed more as a conversation about the specific needs of higher education and the responsibilities of technology adoption.
When we look back twenty years, the picture is mixed. Clearly, a rapid and fundamental shift in higher education practice has taken place, driven by technology adoption. Yet at the same time, nothing much has changed, and many edtech developments have failed to have significant impact. Perhaps the overall conclusion, then, is that edtech is not a game for the impatient.
Notes
Audrey Watters, “What Are the Best Books about the History of 1.
Education Technology? [https://edtechbooks.org/-SIc]” Hack Education (blog), April 5, 2008. ↵ [#fnr1]
Stephen Downes, “Learning Objects: Resources for Distance 2.
Education Worldwide [https://edtechbooks.org/-mi],”
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning2, no. 1 (2001). ↵ [#fnr2]
Robin Mason and D. Rehak, “Keeping the Learning in Learning 3.
Objects,” in Allison Littlejohn, ed., Reusing Online Resources: A Sustainable Approach to E-Learning (London: Kogan Page, 2003). ↵ [#fnr3]
David Wiley, “The Reusability Paradox 4.
[https://edtechbooks.org/-xZi]” (August 2002). ↵ [#fnr4]
See, e.g., Michael Feldstein, “How and Why the IMS Failed 5.
with LTI 2.0 [https://edtechbooks.org/-Ibn],” e-Literate (blog), November 6, 2017. ↵ [#fnr5]
David Wiley, keynote address [https://edtechbooks.org/-BNN], 6.
OER18, Bristol, UK, April 19, 2018. ↵ [#fnr6]
Scott Jaschik, “Blackboard Patents Challenged 7.
[https://edtechbooks.org/-Hd],” Inside Higher Ed, December 1, 2006. ↵ [#fnr7]
Jim Groom and Brian Lamb, “Reclaiming Innovation 8.
[https://edtechbooks.org/-Wrh],” EDUCAUSE Review 49, no. 3 (May/June 2014). ↵ [#fnr8]
Alan Levine, “ds106: Not a Course, Not Like Any MOOC 9.
[https://edtechbooks.org/-DKS],” EDUCAUSE Review 48, no. 1 (January/February 2013). ↵ [#fnr9]
Tim O’Reilly, “What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business 10.
Models for the Next Generation of Software
[https://edtechbooks.org/-PF],” O’Reilly (website), September 30, 2005; Bryan Alexander, “Web 2.0: A New Wave of
Innovation for Teaching and Learning?
[https://edtechbooks.org/-hrE]” EDUCAUSE Review 41, no. 2
(March/April 2006). ↵ [#fnr10]
O’Reilly, “What Is Web 2.0. [https://edtechbooks.org/-PF]” ↵ 11.
[#fnr11]
Robin Wauters, “The Death of ‘Web 2.0,’
12.
[https://edtechbooks.org/-QV]” TechCrunch, February 14, 2009.
↵ [#fnr12]
Jason Fitzpatrick, “If You’re Not Paying for It; You’re the 13.
Product [https://edtechbooks.org/-byu],” Lifehacker,November 23, 2010. ↵ [#fnr13]
David Weinberger, Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of 14.
the New Digital Disorder (New York: Times Books, 2007). ↵ [#fnr14]
George Siemens, “Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the 15.
Digital Age [https://edtechbooks.org/-zKa],” elearnspace (blog), December 12, 2004. See also Stephen Downes, “An
Introduction to Connective Knowledge
[https://edtechbooks.org/-hoz],” December 22, 2005, and “What Connectivism Is [https://edtechbooks.org/-Tg],” February 5, 2007. ↵ [#fnr15]
George Siemens, “What Is the Theory That Underpins Our 16.
MOOCs? [https://edtechbooks.org/-gYQ],” elearnspace (blog), June 3, 2012. ↵ [#fnr16]
Patrick Greenfield, “The Cambridge Analytica Files: The Story 17.
So Far [https://edtechbooks.org/-kf],” The Guardian, March 25, 2018. ↵ [#fnr17]
Laura Pappano, “The Year of the MOOC 18.
[https://edtechbooks.org/-FXb],” New York Times, November 2, 2012. ↵ [#fnr18]
Clay Shirky, “Napster, Udacity, and the Academy 19.
[https://edtechbooks.org/-ZUU],” Clay Shirky (blog), November 12, 2012. ↵ [#fnr19]
Anne Raith, “Stanford for Everyone: More Than 120,000 Enroll 20.
in Free Classes [https://edtechbooks.org/-pqG],” KQED News, August 23, 2011. ↵ [#fnr20]
Steven Leckart, “The Stanford Education Experiment Could 21.
Change Higher Learning Forever
[https://edtechbooks.org/-Pnp],” Wired, March 20, 2012. ↵ [#fnr21]
Robin DeRosa and Scott Robison, “From OER to Open 22.
Pedagogy: Harnessing the Power of Open
[https://edtechbooks.org/-ovZ],” in Rajiv S. Jhangiani and Robert Biswas-Diener, eds., Open: The Philosophy and Practices That Are Revolutionizing Education and Science(London: Ubiquity Press, 2017). ↵ [#fnr22]
Sharon Slade and Paul Prinsloo, “Learning Analytics: Ethical 23.
Issues and Dilemmas [http://oro.open.ac.uk/36594/],” American Behavioral Scientist 57, no. 10 (2013). ↵ [#fnr23]
Abby Jackson, “Digital Badges Are the Newest Effort to Help 24.
Employees Stave Off the Robots—and Major Companies Are Getting Onboard [https://edtechbooks.org/-Us],” Business Insider, September 28, 2017. ↵ [#fnr24]
Audrey Watters, “AI Is Ideological [https://edtechbooks.org/-25.
TA],” New Internationalist, November 1, 2017. ↵ [#fnr25]
Alexander Grech and Anthony F. Camilleri, Blockchain in 26.
Education, [https://edtechbooks.org/-yvF] JRC Science for Policy Report (Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017). ↵ [#fnr26]
Michael A. Caulfield, Web Literacy for Student Fact-Checkers, 27.
[https://edtechbooks.org/-vE] January 8, 2017. ↵ [#fnr27]
Anant Agarwal, “Where Higher Education Is Headed in the 21st 28.
Century: Unbundling the Clock, Curriculum, and Credential [https://edtechbooks.org/-WT],” The Times of India, May 12, 2016. ↵ [#fnr28]
Please complete this short survey to provide feedback on this chapter:
http://bit.ly/20yearsEdTech
II. Learning and Instruction
Many of the activities that LIDT professionals engage in are also completed by other professionals, such as web designers, curriculum writers, multimedia developers, and teachers. A powerful difference for LIDT professionals is our understanding of learning and
instructional theory, and our efforts to apply these theories to our LIDT practice. For this reason, understanding what psychology and science can teach us about how people learn, and how good
instruction is provided, is critical to any effective LIDT professional.
The chapters in this section serve only as a basic starting ground to your pursuit of understanding in this area. You will learn about how the mind works and remembers information, and emotional factors in learning such as motivation and self-efficacy. I have included a classic article by Peg Ertmer and Tim Newby on the "Big 3" learning theories of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism and a new chapter on sociocultural learning theories which extend beyond the Big 3.
Included are a few chapters on more recent theoretical developments in the areas of informal learning, internet-based learning
(connectivism), learning communities, and creative learning. Finally, two chapters are included on instructional theory from Charles Reigeluth, who edited several editions of the book Instructional-Design Theories and Models and David Merrill, whose First Principles of Instruction summary of basic instructional principles is perhaps the most well known of instructional frameworks in our field.
Additional Reading
An excellent resource to supplement your reading of learning theories in this section is the newly released How People Learn book, available for free online.
https://edtechbooks.org/-iT